Women should not deliberately
be sent into combat

I used to be that we fathers fought to protect our women and children. Now we expect to hide behind their skirts while they protest us.

The best argument against women in combat I ever heard was that a male enemy would likely fight to the death rather than be defeated by women.

Combat is a basically a controlled 'Roid Rage, a state women are incapable of because they don't the steroid that causes 'Roid Rage: T-E-S-T-O-S-T-E-R-O-N-E. Any questions?

No matter what happens next, I think this point of view is kind and sensible. Women can give birth are not optimized biologically for fighting. Those who withdraw protection from women by trying to elide the giving birth aspect, are the lowest of the low. Those who offer protection even when society is telling them not to, belong imo to be enrolled in the host of Archangel Michael.

Women are critical for he survival of the species. Protecting women has ALWAYS been a prime directive in men's brains, literally FOREVER. I don't want to 'oppress' women, but I sure would like to spare them from the danger and heartache of combat, if at all possible.

In this time when up is down and down is up, it is refreshing to read an article that is true and makes perfect sense. I'll bet the libtards hate this article. They hate anything that makes sense today.

Nonsense. Women demand EQUALITY. It's that simple. The old canards about women being incapable have been disproven by service as police officers and fire fighters. The social taboo needs to disappear in this age of VOLUNTEER military and "equal pay." Physical standards must be adjusted so that all soldiers/airmen/Marines are held to the same standard without compensation for gender. You take the King's penny...

Until very recently I would agree that women do not belong in combat. However, due to the shameful wokeness of our military, I believe the military should practice what they preach. Female troops must be treated exactly the same as male troops. If the men are sent into combat, the women must go too. Also, women should also be required to register for Selective Service.

I lived in South Carolina during the early 1990's when the feminist Shannon Faulkner emerged, claiming she should be allowed to be a cadet at the Citadel in Charleston. She won her case. However, when she finally joined the ranks with all the men--demanding that she be treated like one of them--she quit in a matter of days because she couldn't keep up with them. I am also a veteran of the United States Army and was part of the physical fitness training and testing team. I have never seen a woman outdo a man in all categories of the APFT. Not even close. A soldier needed 180 points to pass the fitness test. 300 points was a perfect score. But a woman who did 45 push ups in two minutes was scored differently than a man. A female, e.g., depending on her age, might score 100 points with 45 push ups. If a man matched a woman with 45 push ups, he would get a lower score, e.g., he might get 65 points. If he wanted to score 100 points, he would need to do a lot more than 45 push ups. I served when there wasn't an environment of political correctness and unrealistic expectations. I'm sure things aren't the same anymore.

But they should be required to register for Selective Service. Or eliminate the requirement for men. Women wanted equality and they should get it good and hard.

“All societies are based on rules to protect pregnant women and young children. All else is surplusage, excrescence, adornment, luxury, or folly which can - and must - be dumped in emergency to preserve this prime function. As racial survival is the only universal morality, no other basic is possible. Attempts to formulate a “perfect society” on any foundation other than “Women and children first!” is not only witless, it is automatically genocidal. Nevertheless, starry-eyed idealists (all of them male) have tried endlessly - and no doubt will keep on trying.” - Robert Heinlein I was a Marine in Vietnam. I can’t imagine putting a woman into that environment. Any man who advocates that has never been in combat, or is a fool.

I am a woman, and I fully agree 100%!!!!!! All these politically correct experiments (women in combat, homosexuals in the military at all, transgender perversion not only accepted but paid for, etc, etc) have one sole purpose -- to weaken our military to the point that we will be easily defeated in future wars. Bring back a good, solid, 100% normal male, military, who bleed patriotism and love for country, and we are the most powerful army on Earth. Right now, the Chinese would walk over us without breaking much of a sweat!!!

#3 - Your notation of Roid Rage is, of course, correct. However, I would like to also note that "women of a certain age" need hormone replacement pills daily and should those pills not be available...well, Katy bar the door. About 10 years back when the Congress was in a tizzy about illegal steroid use in sports, they made testosterone a class III controlled drug. All of the estrogen-testosterone meds for post-menopausal women were suddenly taken off the market and were entirely unavailable for two months. I was one of those women and life got nasty real fast and I was in no mood to put up with any bull-larky. I told TK that if the military ever needed a formidable force they should have a group of post-menopausal women and take away their hormones five days before the battle. They would wipe out all foes. It could be called "The Boudica Brigade".

How many warriors can 1 man potentially have in a year with 20 women vs. 1 woman with 20 men? There's a reason all throughout history that when men went on raids women were a main item to be taken. See Quanah Parker, renowned Comanche Chief. His mother had been captured during a raid. This is ancient stuff.

What about the whiney ones?

Real question is on recruitment. Will Biden and his Woke zealots controlling the Pentagon attract enough talented volunteers, men and women, to properly staff our armed forces? An all volunteer military needs individuals who put country first to join, and I have not seen anything from Biden and his army of diversity hires that would be called inspiring. Offering free transgender surgery, emphasizing preferential treatment of gender and race over merit and weeding out soldiers and Marines viewed as right wingers or Trump supporters won’t attract recruits, especially for the South. So women and those who identify as women might make up a larger and larger percentage of the surely declining recruiting programs. The “Army of one, anyone” may soon confront us. Biden might be a magnet for illegals but he won’t be for the armed forces.

Does this mean that if another ship goes down by hitting an iceberg, every man and child will head to the lifeboats while the woman go down with the ship listening to Nearer My God To Thee?

Absolutely agree. Women (Doctors, Nurses, Etc.) should be placed to the rear positions. The only time our women or children should have to fight is if the enemy has passed our lines and is coming down our streets at home. They have no business in the front line positions.

If women were as capable in combat as men the armies of the world would have been filled with them from the days of Adam right down to today. Martin Van Creveld wrote a book on this which brings much sanity to the issue (not that sanity is relevant to the partisans who push for this lunacy).

As is customary, the US Military often operates on fifty-year-old thinking but that thinking in turn evolved from wearing bright red coats into battle while marching in straight lines and beating drums. General Pickett lost thousands of men at Gettysburg by stupidly and repeatedly charging a fortified position. Training, discipline and military tactics from WW2 were being used in Vietnam. We later attempted desert warfare with jungle tactics and had to learn on the fly. The people running the show today saw their last personal combat decades ago. You learn to be better in the field not after they glue your butt to a desk chair somewhere. Therefore, women may not be ready for the combat requirements of today but in the near future will see much more of it. Some things to ponder: Special Operations people are not typically big and muscular like the soldiers of old, they are smaller than the average operator but very muscular for their size. They have learned to develop mental toughness to compensate for size and that's what enables them to fight harder and finish first. In jobs that do not require hauling a 100 lb pack around, such as fighter pilot, woman can compete with men. Example: big, strong men do not win marathons, 120 lb Kenyans do. In the future, many ground combat jobs will be taken over by robotics or performed from halfway around the world. Women will eventually get their chance, but why the hurry? The Vikings had female warriors who could swing a sword with the best of them but we no longer need sword fighters. We need tough, smart warfighters of all shapes and sizes and women should be encouraged to compete for those jobs if they want them, with the caveat that the success of the mission and minimal loss of life comes first. Unfortunately, America is producing fewer and fewer of that type with each generation and military leadership now must be more concerned with diversity, hurt feelings, racism, white supremacy and use of proper pronouns so it doesn't get any easier.

Put the feminists on the first wave. Give the second wave rifles.

IF they volunteered AND went into Combat I would expect them to perform 110%, just like every other GI I've ever known, including ME. IF they whine and don't want to DO THEIR JOB, Dishonorably Discharge them. There IS NO place in Armed Forces for those that cannot pick up a weapon and KILL the ENEMY, PERIOD, and that especially includes Liberals that want a free ride! NEXT QUESTION..............